I am going to be a guest on Mike Huckabee’s show on the FOX News channel, Sunday night at 8 eastern, and probably again at 11. We will be talking gun laws. This is related to my opinion on gun control essay from December 20th.

While it probably wouldn’t do great things for your blood pressure, it would be interesting to see you go on the Piers Morgan show, though it probably would end up really one-sided. Facts can be a scary thing…:-)

Because the M$NBC, @BC, and C-N studios were not built strong enough to handle his awesomnes? Because they are terrified of his being a wise Latino father? Because Piers Morgan’s and Toure’s hairpieces were found in a corner, cowering in fear when the very idea was broached?

Suggest you have numbers ready for how many rounds police routinely expend before a subject is stopped, especially when you disregard subjects who surrender or retreat after the first shot.

I suspect the number of shots required will be in the 3-6 range, but i don’t have current data to back that up. If the data could be found, it would be relevant to 10 round magazines when you might need to face a second or third attacker.

do NOT do this. stick to the facts and logic that reasonable people can understand. you aren’t going to win an argument with idiots by descending to their level; they have more experience there and will beat you every time.

and do please link. i dislike both Huckabee and cable news in general, but i’d be willing to tolerate both to hear you trash some talking heads on live tv. go about it just like in your ‘fisking the morons’ posts and you’ll do great.

Facts mostly play to the choir, and they are useful for crushing any fact based arguments or misapplied statistics that the Left may use.

But the mushy moronic middle doesn’t want to think and mostly responds to emotional appeal. Just think of how far the Fascist Left has gotten with the non sequitur “Kids were killed in a (no self-defense allowed) school in CT so we must ban self-loading rifles and normal sized magazines.” I don’t see how one follows the other, but it works with the sheep…

So we need them both. My dad actually tried to explain that to me for years, but I stupidly believed that all you needed were facts, until I actually had to deal the silly idiots that make up the majority of the population.

Sjonnar, check out the recent story of the Georgia mother of two who hid with her two children in their homes crawl space, only to see the crawl space door opened by the home invader; she emptied her .38 revolver into the perp, hitting with 5 of 6 shots only to have him drive off. If he had a partner or two …

Now imagine Larry telling that story from the POV of the young mother, crouching in that crawl space, her 9-year-old twins (boy, girl, one each) hiding behind her, with her husband on her cell phone. Get Huckabee to play the 911 tape.

Regarding RES’ link:
I would give at least even odds that the Hermans will be sued for their actions in the home invasion (or at least burglary) allegedly committed by Paul Slater. After all husband Donnie Herman is recorded on 911 as saying “… shoot him again!” and Mr Slater is apparently recorded as (nicely, no doubt) asking Melinda Herman to stop shooting, which she did not do until she had emptied her weapon. Clearly Mr Slater has had a difficult life, what with the prior convictions and jail time, and is not to blame for the circumstances that forced him into an economically justified life of so-called crime. Why, the Hermans have stuff. A house even! They must be oppressors of some sort. Where is the Social Justice in that? And no doubt someone is going to blame Mrs Herman for exposing her impressionable 9-year old children to gun violence. Had she asked politely in a respectful manner, appealing to Mr Slater’s better side, perhaps with a little discussion about their common humanity, no doubt he would have left the home quietly, with all concerned a little richer for the cultural exchange and constructive, growthful dialog.

Don’t think any attorney could have sufficiently flexible ethics to sue the Hermans on behalf of Slater? Consider the case of Marin county’s Samuel Cutrufelli. Incidentally, 90-year old home invasion victim Jay Leone put 3 or 4 handgun rounds into Cutrufelli (who then was able to run out of Leone’s home after getting shot), after Cutrufelli shot Leone in the face. Melinda Herman put 5 of 6 rounds into Slater, who also managed to run out of her home and get into his car.

From these incidents I conclude that clearly no one needs more than a single-shot firearm. The problem is that Mr Slater and Mr Cutrufelli failed to watch the TV shows where a single round causes the target to somersault backwards through a large window or off a balcony, and then explode on impact.

see Mike_C’s post. now imagine the leftist talking head calling for that very lawsuit on national tv, using the very argument that Mike subverted. and then imagine all the various leftist fuckwads out there who will agree with that argument and hold Slater up as the victim of gun violence.

like i told Harry, we cannot fight them on their own turf. they have more experience there.

Someone give me an emotional prompt arguing for gun control, and I’ll write a sample emotional counterargument. If enough people do that, Larry Correia may be able to skim through the message log and pick something he can adapt for himself.

All I can think of was using “freedom” and “liberty” as much as possible. My dad’s coaching did not work too well with me, which is why I became a computer geek.
Heck, I am not even certain that freedom and liberty will poll well any more. I know “responsibility” won’t…

standard leftist emotional gun control argument: LOOK AT ALL THE DEAD CHILDREN WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW WON’T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN? EVIL MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (firearms manufacturers = military-industrial complex in leftist land) IS FUNNELING GUNS INTO CLASSROOMS BECAUSE THEY WANT DEAD CHILDREN AND MONEY AND DEAD CHILDREN = MONEY AND THEY HATE PUPPIES.

How about this as a reply: MY child is still alive. by the time he was two years old, he was asking me to check under his bed for monsters, which i was glad to do. And since I resolved never to lie to my child, even implicitly, I have always been prepared to handle any monsters i might find. Because if I were unarmed, and a monster were really there? I couldn’t do a single thing to save my child.

My kid has faith in my ability to solve problems, and I try to live up to that faith.

only because you were willing to use VIOLENCE, which all reasonable people know is the ultimate evil, and to do so with a GUN, of all things, which only compounds your evil. and what if your kid got a hold of the gun? the evil violent spirits therein would possess your boy and make him go murder all his classmates at school. and a puppy.

also, there aren’t any such thing as monsters. (except for people who use/own firearms) they’re all just misunderstood folks who didn’t have as much stuff as you did growing up. because you took it from them.

Emotional arguments are not necessarily the same thing as fallacious arguments. an argument which is logical, but also appeals to an emotional interest, might be helpful. An argument which is both emotional and counterfactual is pointless.

So yes, there are some emotional people making bizarre arguments that can’t be reasoned with. But a good, logical argument, reinforced with an emotional anecdote, will reach a broader argument that a good logical argument by itself.

I agree with Sjonnar. Do not use emotional arguments. Aside from their flaws it will alwayse hurt your argument.

I’ve gotten into many debates with left wing types and for the few of them who actually remember their Philosophy Logic classes they are alwayse trying to point out a slip up in my arguments. Be it an emotional plea or other Logical Fallacy. Once they think they have seen a Fallacy they practically foam at the mouth like a pit bull who has seen a jugular. They pounce on it and enter a debate equivalent of a blood frenzy. It’s funny because in their minds they are allowed emotional arguments and we aren’t. It’s even funnier as this blood frenzy is almost alwayse full of some of the very Fallacies they are accusing you of using.

The one saving grace is that many of the left wing debaters who scream Fallacy at the top of their lungs haven’t pointed out an actual Fallacy. And sometimes they are just pointing out their own Fallacies and trying to assign them to you. When you defeat their points they often rage quit. Which unfortunately to them and those who support them is a victory. They actually claim a victory because they are too dignified to continue debating with a savage such as you(us…whatever pronoun works). They yell and rant and scream, and then claim a moral victory even if all their points were defeated. As not engaging the savage is the more sophisticated thing to do. That sophistication is an automatic win in their books.

There are a few left wing debaters who actually point out valid Fallacies, but in my experience they are few and far between. I’ve even had a Fallacy or two pointed out on my part and had to restructure my argument. Once I did that they rage quit as well.

Using emotional arguments is alwayse a bad thing when arguing a partisan issue like this. It can only become a double edged sword dealing 1d6 damage to your opponent and due to weapon design deals 1d8 damage back to you. For those who don’t game that means there is a chance your argument will do more damage to you than to your opponent.

Not all anti-gun or left wing debaters engage in these practices. The ones who will be replying to whatever Larry says will though. So it’s best not to give them any ammo.

Good luck, stay cool. One of the things I think gun supporters could do better is to work with the media instead of directly antagonizing it. You can’t tell someone they’re biased, prejudiced and irrational and then ask them to carry your message. They’ve already tuned out whatever else you may say.

The key is education, explanation and patience. I’ve “won” arguments with hopolophobes from time to time, but to win one I had to buy him a rifle and get him invested into it before he changed his tune. Still, it is a win!

At least we “took the bullet” for the rest of the nation. Everybody now knows what Cuomo is all about. As crappy as he was before he was focused on budget/tax items which on a state level he was doing an alright job. After getting whacked with a 12.5% property tax increase (about $1,000 increase on a small house in a blue collar neighborhood) his cap on annual property tax increases in any year was welcomed by everyone. He was palatable at least… That was what he needed for national office.

This changes everything. Frankly I think he overestimated anti gun sentiment nationally by being surrounded by the hard left. NO SHOOTER can mistake his intentions now and that is going to hurt him big time.

Hey, Ken – did you read Fox News today? Apparently, they were in such a hurry to pass the new law that they forgot to exempt the police and law enforcement. All of their high-capacity magazines are now illegal!!! Turn them in or get rid of them, boys in blue!!!

Cuomo is trying to avert the problem from their oversight by saying the old law exempted LEOs so the new one that replaces it does by default… The bottom line is they are just going to refuse to enforce it selectively. Anybody surprised?

Huckabee’s show also reruns at 3:00 AM in the Red Eye slot Monday morning.

BTW, did you see Thursday morning’s NY Times article “Even Defining ‘Assault Rifles’ Is Complicated” by Erica Goode? Using the authority of the NYT against the gun controllers ought give them conniptions.

FWIW I’m opposed to emotional arguments as well, and personally am reluctant to go that route even if that’s what the other side is doing.

That said, let’s go with the argument that if there’s ANYTHING we can do to save even a single child’s life, we should do it. I mean, who can put a price on a human life, right? So here’s a modest proposal that no reasonable person can argue with. Anyone who disagrees is a bad, immoral, socially irresponsible person.

Let’s look at the government’s own data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). We will stipulate that the data are as clean and unbiased as possible. (And this is /sarcasm=off, I am willing to trust these data.) From 2010 mortality figures we see that:

2. Of the MVA deaths, 10,228 (31%) were alcohol related. (For comparison, this number is quite similar to the number of gun-related homicides, 11,078).

3. A total of 1210 children (aged 0 to 14 years) were killed in MVAs in 2010, and of these 211 died in alcohol-related MVAs.

4. Impaired driving is a widely prevalent problem in the US. There were over 1.4 million ARRESTS for substance-impaired driving in 2010 (about 18% were for something other than alcohol, or were not alcohol alone, as in “Did a few lines of coke, AND half a fifth.”). Estimates (admittedly softer data) indicate about 112 million incidents of impaired driving in 2010, based on projections of self report from surveys. Bottom line, clearly alcohol impaired driving is a MAJOR public health/safety problem in the US, and the number of deaths due to drunk driving is on the order of the number of people killed by other people using guns.

So, I propose that every new car sold in the US be equipped with an ignition interlock device (IID). We should also mandate that existing cars be retrofitted, but the details of that can be worked out later.

What’s an IID, you ask? Well, basically it’s a breathalyzer hooked up to your car’s ignition. You have to blow into it before you can start your car. If the IID thinks it detects alcohol above a certain level, your car won’t start. Many IIDs also require that you periodically re-check (blow again into the device) after starting the car, say every 15 minutes. Doesn’t that sound like a good idea? After all drunk driving kills about as many people as die from gun homicide, and CHILDREN are killed by drunk drivers.

Would having to be breathalyzed prior to (and during in many cases) each car trip YOU make be a pain in the ass? Well, sure, but we must do it for the children. Is it an over-reaching governmental presumption of guilt on the part of the millions of drivers who are responsible and do not drive drunk or even “slightly buzzed?” Of course not, and if you disagree with me you are a bad, socially-irresponsible person. A baby killer who advocates letting people drive while smashed out of their skulls on demon rum. Is it possible that someone will come to harm because their car inappropriately failed to start due to IID error? Well, that would be unfortunate, but hey, a rape or mugging is a small price to pay to ensure our childrens’ safety.

Oh, you in the back have a practical question. Suppose we actually do this, what would it cost to install IIDs in every new car? Well actually I don’t know. I looked at dozens of websites, and called some providers. The websites only list monthly rental fees, and the “sales” representatives tell me that they do NOT sell IIDs, only rent them. Well, it costs $70-100/month to rent, and somewhere between $100-250 one-time installation fee (then additional charges if your ignition is locked and you need it reset, but we’ll ignore that). So who knows what these things would add to costs. But let’s assume (probably overestimate) between $1000 and $2000 to make and permanently install a device. The average cost of a new car in 2012 was just over $30,000. So if I’ve guessed correctly, an IID would add between 3 to 7% to the cost of a new car, on average. A small price to pay TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Sure, I don’t know what these things really cost. But I do know where the money to pay for all this would come from: the same magical fund to buy back all the long guns (or are they up to all scary things that go “bang” now?) in this country.

Okay, based on the numbers it’s clear that mandating IIDs for everyone is just COMMON SENSE, and anyone who disagrees with me is a foolish, socially irresponsible, misguided knuckle-dragger clinging to false, outdated notions about individual responsibility, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the proper relationship between the individual and the State.

And we’re not done yet. Speeding also kills people (and uses more gasoline). No one NEEDS a car that can go above the speed limits. Let’s be generous and say that 70 MPH is plenty fast for anyone. We’ll even stipulate that sometimes one might need temporarily to exceed the limit, e.g. to avoid a crash. So we’ll make the ceiling 75 mph. Along with the IID we’ll mandate speed governors on each new car. That’s the common sense thing to do. Heck, some trucking companies run these devices. NO REASONABLE PERSON could possibly object to these modest measures. Oh, and if we ban spoilers, hood scoops, chrome exhaust pipes and other scary looking car parts we will make our roadways a safer place.

—-
For the overly literal and those looking nitpick their way to an argument. No, I AM strongly opposed to drunk (or otherwise impaired) driving, believe we should 1) have harsh penalties for such irresponsible behavior, 2) actually enforce such laws as we already have regarding drunk driving. No, I have no objection to mandating IIDs for those people CONVICTED of DUI-type crimes. And finally, I personally am not a fan of hood scoops, spoilers and chrome pipes, but I am not nearly so goofy as to believe that banning them would make the streets safer. People have a right to have those just as they have a right to wear stripes with plaid.